(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "An examination into the evidence of the chiefship of Clann-Ghilleain"

193*. "I- 





EVIDENCES 



CHIEFSHIP 



CLANN-GIIILLEAIN 



|.|iri=l% l-l plliii fifej'fr BttiMW-wHft-Alf^tf-iiiiii^ 



^^nimm'^ of Scotland 
*B000 196755' 



AN 



EXAMINATION 



INTO THE 



EVIDENCES OF THE CHIEFSHIP 



CLANN-GHILLEAIN 



BY 

PROFESSOR J, P, MACLEAN, 

Author of the " History of the Clan MacLean." 



CSlasgoln: 

MACLURE, MACDONALD & CO., 
Ornamental Printers to the Queen, 2 Bothwell Circus. 

1895. 




LAURISTON CASTLE 
LIBRARY ACCESSIUN 



^0 

COI.ONEI. Sir FITZROY DONALD MACLEAN, 

Baronict of Duart, Morvern, and Broi^as, 

AND 

(Ehief of Clann-©hiUcatn, 

A GENTLEMAN DISTINGUISHKD FOR HIS MANY VIRTUES, 
AND UNIVisR.SALLY HONOURED UY HIS CLANSMEN, 

■Shis IJtocltttre is rcsptftfull!) ^ebitstfti 

BY 

THE AUTHOR. 



Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2011 witii funding from 

National Library of Scotland 



http://www.archive.org/details/exaininationintoe1895macl 



INTRODUCTION. 

THE year A.D. 1895 witnessed a claimant to the 
Chiefship of the Clann - Ghilleain. As there never 
was but one Clan by this name, and as the undis- 
puted Chiefship resided in Duart, the pretensions 
of the claimant were received by the MacLeans with both 
astonishment and disgust. The uniform traditions of the 
Clan, the facts of history, the recognition of the chieftains 
of the various septs, all pointed to the leadership of Duart. 
Hence, the MacLeans were covered with chagrin that any one 
would have the folly to lay aside the facts of history, in 
order to assume an honour entirely foreign to his pretensions 
or merits. While it was known that such pretensions had 
been privately put forth, and so long as the assumption had 
been kept from the gaze of the public, the MacLeans, who 
were aware of the circumstances, either viewed the matter 
with indifference or else good-naturedly passed it over. 

On the 8th and 15th January, 1895, Mr. John MacLean, vice- 
president of the Clan MacLean Association, addressed a letter 
to Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy, in which he not only invited 
that gentleman to become a member of the Association, but 
also requested permission to insert an imprint of the coat-of- 
arms of the House of Lochbuy, along with that of other cadets, 
on a prepared diploma to be given to the members of the 
Association. The missives of Mr. MacLean were couched in 
polite language. Under date of January 24th, Mr. Maclaine 
replied to the invitation and request as follows : 

"I have to thank you for your letter of the 15th inst, 
enclosing copy of the Constitution and Rules of the ' Clan 
MacLean Association,' which I have carefully considered. I 
shall be much obliged if you will have the goodness to convey 
to the members of the Association my thanks for the honour 
they have done me in requesting that I should become a 
member, and to express my great regret that I am unable to 
take advantage of their kindness. I regard such an Association 



6 

as in every way admirable. It maintains the ancient ties of 
kindred, it fosters an intelligent interest in a worthy past, and 
it may be made the means of rendering efficient help to many 
deserving persons. I accordingly wish sincerely that your con- 
stitution were such as to admit of all becoming members who 
bear our historic name. I see, however, that membership of the 
Association implies recognition of ' Colonel Sir Fitzroy Donald 
Mac Lean, Bart, of Duart, Morvern, and Brolas,' as the hereditary 
Chief of the Clan, a proposition to which I am unable to assent. 
It is a matter of notoriety that the Chiefship of Duart has not 
been universally accepted. In particular, as you are possibly 
aware, the ' House of Lochbuie ' has always claimed to be 
descended from an older brother of the ancestors of the Duart 
line, and so to be heirs-male of Gillian na Tuigh. I have no 
more desire to take part at the present time in this hoary dispute 
than I have to discuss Sir Fitzroy 's claims to be heir-male of the 
Duart line with those who choose to regard him as such. And, 
so far as the Association is concerned, I should have been quite 
prepared to leave it an open question; but your constitution does 
not do so. It goes the whole length of affirming Sir Fitzroy's 
pretensions to represent Duart, and Duart's pretensions to be 
Chief of the whole name of MacGillian. Membership in the 
Association accordingly implies, as I have said, a recognition of 
these pretensions which it is wholly impossible for me to give. 
In these circumstances, I do not suppose that the Association 
will desire to place on their diploma the armorial bearings of 
one whom they have thus unfortunately prevented from becom- 
ing a member. But should they still wish to do so, I regret that 
I cannot comply with the request that I should formally sanction 
this being done. It is not for me to criticise the pictures with 
which Professor J. P. MacLean has adorned his book. The 
authenticity of the coats there given is a matter of concern 
primarily to the gentlemen whose arms they profess to bear. 
And if they are satisfied with the bearings assigned to them, I 
have no desire to question their right to use them. But I own 
I should not care to see the Lochbuie coat figuring on your 
diploma in company with some of them, even if it were possible 
for me to sanction the use of my arms by an Association whose 
constitution does not merely ignore but explicitly repudiates the 
well-known claims of the family which I have the honour to 
represent. I have written you at some length with regard to 
these matters, as it is due both to the Association and to myself 
that there should be no misconception of my position. Let me 
again thank you for the courtesy of your letters. — I am, &c., 

"MACLAINE OF LOCHBUIE, 

" Chief of the Clan." 



THE LETTER flNllLYSED. 

T T may be needless to remark that the assumption of 
I " Chief of the Clan " did not go unchallenged. But 
I before proceeding to the discussion which followed, I 
-*■ beg to present an analysis of the letter. Coming from 
a presumably intelligent man, it is certainly a strange produc- 
tion. There are incongruities in it which hardly seem possible 
for a rational man to perpetrate. 

It will be noticed that Mr. Maclaine recognises there is but 
one Clan Gillian, and to it he poses as Chief. Not the least 
suspicion crosses his mind that there may be, or were, two or 
more Clans bearing the same name ; that his line and that of 
Duart are from the same progenitors ; one and all of the sur- 
name of MacLean (including his peculiar spelling — Maclaine) 
belong to one, and only one. Highland Clan. This is a matter 
that should not be overlooked, for he practically admits it. The 
practicability of the Association receives his approbation, but 
he regrets that the Association's constitution does not permit of 
all becoming members, because it recognises that Sir Fitzroy 
Donald MacLean is Chief of the Clan. He cannot admit of this 
proposition, because " the House of Lochbuie has always claimed 
to be descended from an older brother of the ancestor of the 
Duart line." On account of this " claim," Mr. Maclaine of 
Lochbuy pretends to be "Chief of the Clan." It will be noticed 
that he gives no other proofs. The matter of his " Chiefship " 
rests entirely on a " claim " which he asserts has " always " been 
put forth. Nor does he cite any authority that the " claim " has 
"always" been made. If there had been even a scintilla of 
evidence for this " claim," who is there that doubts its immediate 
production ? And yet this pretender to the Chiefship of the Clan 
unblushingly indites, " I should have been prepared to leave it 
(Chiefship) an open question, but your constitution does not do 
so ! " A man advertising himself (in various papers of Scotland) 
as the "Chief of the Clan," belittles himself and dishonours his 
Clan by blandly affirming that he is willing to leave it an " open 
question ! " A slur is thrown at Sir Fitzroy's " claims to be 
heir-male of the Duart line" and of his "pretensions to repre- 
sent Duart." The meaning of this is not obvious, but was 
brought out in the discussion, which will be considered in due 
time. Let it here be fully understood that Sir Fitzroy makes 
no pretensions, nor is he a claimant. It never was necessary 
for him to advertise himself as the Chief His clansmen every- 
where recognise him to be the Chief of the Clan. As such he is 



recognised by the chieftains of the Clan, and as such he was 
invited to America to be the guest of his clansmen, an honour 
never before bestowed upon a Highland Chief. All this was 
through no solicitation or intimation on the part of Gilleain's 
Chief. In the next place, Maclaine of Lochbuy declines to 
allow his coat-of-arms to figure on a diploma where may be 
similar devices of his clansmen. This certainly is a sorry figure 
for a "Chief" Would a Highland chief without provocation 
insult the chieftains of his clan ? If so, how long would he be 
chief? What would the Mod do in such a case? Notwithstand- 
ing the Chiefship was hereditary, yet the Chief remained such only 
by the consent of his clansmen. It is on record of Highland 
chiefs being set aside by their clans. Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy 
gave me a printed impression of his coat-of-arms, fully knowing 
I should publish the same in conjunction with all the coats-of- 
arms of the various cadets which I should be able to obtain. 
He made no objection then. Nor is that all. He almost over- 
whelmed me with pictures relating to his estate, which would 
have cost a small fortune to reproduce, all of which he desired 
me to have inserted in my projected history of the Clan. 
Perhaps here I ought further to say that repeatedly he asked 
me to dedicate my history to him as "Chief of the Clan." 
Perhaps my failure to comply with his folly causes him to be 
acrimonious towards that labour of love I have bestowed upon 
my clansmen — History of tlie Clan MacLeaii. It will be noticed 
that he admits some familiarity with that book. If he has read 
its pages carefully, and if he has more regard for the truth of 
history than for his vanity, he never would be guilty of signing 
" Chief of the Clan " to his name. 



THE CONTROVERSY. 

THE letters written by Mr. John MacLean to Lochbuy 
were essentially of a private character. The latter had 
the incredible folly of rushing into print with the 
entire correspondence. What object he had in view 
would be impossible to determine, unless to gratify his vanity 
by calling attention to his pretensions ; for let it be known that 
no historian, nor any body of men, nor any MacLean organisa- 
tion, nor any individual MacLean, so far as my knowledge 
extends, ever recognised this claimant's pretensions. The pre- 
tensions were at once formally discredited by the Clan MacLean 
Association — an organisation having in its membership the 
chieftains, all the leading and influential MacLeans, besides 
being the largest MacLean organisation in the world. Replies 



were immediately prepared which appeared in the public jour- 
nals. These replies were wholly devoted to the evidence incon- 
testibly controverting the claim of Lochbuy to the Chiefship. 
None of these papers were necessary to those even having only 
a casual knowledge of the history of the MacLeans. As to the 
other parts of Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy's letters, no one deigned 
to answer, for the true animus could not be concealed. 

It hath been said of old that " all things work together for 
good." This has been especially true in the controversy pro- 
duced by the pretensions of the claimant. Historical facts 
bearing upon the subject were called out and the atmosphere 
made radiant with the facts of the past, all of which proved that 
the MacLeans had made no mistake in their recognition of their 
present honoured Chief, Sir Fitzroy Donald MacLean. 

ADMISSIONS. 

THE force of the arguments presented were clear and con- 
vincing to every mind, and undoubtedly were keenly 
felt by the claimant. At once the claim to the Chief- 
ship of the Clan was abandoned, and another fiction 
substituted. This was equally preposterous. In it Mr. Maclaine 
practically reads himself out of the Clan, and sets up a clan for 
himself, which seems to be composed of himself To this 
position no one has entered a protest, perhaps for the reason 
that if Lochbuy does not want to be regarded as a member of 
the historic Clan MacLean, no one should seriously object. 

As Lochbuy could not conveniently shift his position over 
his own signature, the novi de plume of " Historicus " has been 
employed. While it is probable that the pen is a different one, 
yet the writing of the latter was evidently inspired by Lochbuy 
for the ear-marks in both are plainly visible. However, the 
performance is a sorry one. It is a retreat from the vaunted 
position assumed in the letter to Mr. John MacLean. 

This retreat was precipitated by a well considered paper, 
from the pen of Rev. A. M'Lean-Sinclair, that appeared in the 
Glasgoiv Herald. The question of the Chiefship was calmly 
considered under four heads, viz.: The MacLeans of Lochbuy 
were never chiefs of the Clan ; there are no grounds for believ- 
ing that Hector of Lochbuy was the elder son of John Dubh ; 
the present MacLean of Lochbuy is not chieftain by blood of 
all the descendants of Hector Reaganach ; and, lastly, the 
present MacLean of Lochbuy has no right to style himself Chief 
of the Clan. 

The subject was so admirably handled, with such an array; 
of facts, that further controversy should have ended. Any 



10 

unprejudiced mind would be fully satisfied. It certainly placed 
Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy in an unenviable position, by fully 
demonstrating that he was masquerading in borrowed plumage. 
He was now called upon to extricate himself. 



PERFORMllNCE OF "HI8T0R1CU8." 

IN quite a lengthy letter published in the Glasgoiv Herald, 
the anonymous writer styling himself " Historicus " seeks 
to extricate Lochbuy from his dilemma. But few histori- 
cal facts are adduced, all of which, with the references, are 
taken from my History of the Clan MacLean, thus proving 
that the sole source of information was what I had given to the 
public several years before. 

The writer affirms four prepositions, but before stating them 
knocks the prop from under the feet of Lochbuy by declaring, 
" Highland genealogies are notoriously unreliable." Now Mr. 
Maclaine of Lochbuy based his claim on the priority of the 
birth of one of his ancestors who lived some six hundred years 
ago. 

The first affirmation is, " Neither family (Duart and Loch- 
buie) held its lands of the other." Of this there can be no 
question. The contrary was never affirmed. The same is also 
true of Coll, Ardgour, Kingerloch, Dochgarroch, &c., &c. The 
same state of affairs will be found to have existed in other clans. 
A man is certainly very ignorant of Highland history who 
would assert that this cause constituted another clan. Coll, 
Ardgour, Kingerloch, &c., &c., never assumed to be the " Chief 
of the Clan" because they were feudally independent of Duart. 

The second affirmation, " Neither regarded itself as bound to 
follow the other in battle." I do not now recall a single instance 
where Duart followed Lochbuy in battle. However, there is a 
long list where the latter followed the former. It is true that 
the Highlanders were a very free and independent people, and 
sometimes chieftains refused to obey the commands of their 
chiefs, and often were castigated for their disobedience. Many 
a forcible reproof did Lochbuy receive at the hands of his 
hereditary Chief Not only was Lochbuy sometimes refractory, 
but other chieftains of the MacLeans were occasionally con- 
tumacious. We read that Sir Lachlan Mor brought the 
refractory house of Coll to obedience. 

The third affirmation is, " In their relations with the central 
government, as much as with one another, Lochbuy and Duart 
appear as entirely independent clans." This is an assumption 
entirely unwarranted by the facts. There is here an uncalled 



11 

for confusion of facts. At first most of the lands of the 
MacLeans were held from the Lords of the Isles, but afterwards 
direct from the Crown. As a matter of state procedure the 
Crown would deal direct with those who held its charter. So 
the Crown dealt direct with Lochbuy, Coll, Ardgour, &c., &c. 
This in nowise indicated or affirmed that the proprietor was 
an independent chief The Highlanders, among themselves, were 
governed by their own customs and institutions, which were 
radically different from those which prevailed in the Lowlands. 

In the consideration of this point " Historicus " unblushingly 
declares : " Duart expressly disavowed any claim to be Chief of 
Lochbuy." What is the proof? " Hector M'Layne of Dowart, 
appearing personally before the Lords Commissioners for the Isles, 
makes the following offers — (i) to be answerable for all the inhabi- 
tants of Mull, except M'Kynnon, M'Clayne of Coll, and M'Cla}'ne 
of Lochbuy." Whoever can discover a disavowal of Chiefship in 
the above must do so because of his inclination that way. As 
these parties held lands direct from the Crown they must be 
individually responsible for their acts of sedition. There was 
one relation in which the clans stood to the Crown, and an 
entirely different one in which they stood among themselves 
and the neighbouring clans. 

Breaking into his theme, the writer stops to assert that as 
"the tenth Chief of MacLean was a bastard," "not a single one 
of the later lairds of Duart had any legal right even to the 
leadership of that family, not to speak of the whole Clan." 
Perhaps this is as hard a thrust at Lochbuy as could be well 
made. Change the terms a little, and we have the following : 
" As Murchadh Gearr, sixth MacLean of Lochbuy, was a bastard, 
not a single one of the later lairds of Lochbuy had any legal 
right even to the leadership of that famil}'." Certainly " His- 
toricus " makes bad work for the present Maclaine of Lochbuy. 
He literally reads him not only out of the Chief and Chieftain- 
ship, but virtually advertises him as an arrant impostor. 

But Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy is entitled to be delivered 
from his officious friend " Historicus." Although Murchadh 
Gearr was the illegitimate son of John Og, the fifth MacLean of 
Lochbuy, and who took forcible possession of the estates, yet 
the tenantry and all others recognised him and his descendants 
as the actual possessors of the soil. Even so was " Lauchlane 
M'Gilleon son natural to Hector M'Gilleon of Doward ; " but 
he acquired peaceable possession of the estates, having been 
regularly and legally legitimatised by his father. As Chief 
of the MacLeans he was recognised by his clansmen and the 
neighbouring clans. 

This is the point raised by Lochbuy in his letters to Mr. John 
MacLean, and previously referred to. Granting the position 



12 

held by Lochbuy and revelled in by " Historicus," we see that 
once more Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy cuts a sorry figure. The 
very evidence he adduces and the assertions made in his behalf 
are fatal to his pretensions. 

In the fourth place it is affirmed, " There was an entirely 
distinct Clan which regarded Lochbuy as its Chief" Only one 
proof is cited to establish what must be a v^ery important thing 
in clan history. " King's letters raised by Johnne Roy M'Clayne 
relate that being desirous to visit Johnne M'Clayne of Lochbuy, 
his Chieff, and to do unto him sic pleasure and service as he 
was able according to his dewtie." This is a part of an extract 
taken from my History, p. 239. John Roy MacLean had been 
imprisoned by Lochbuy, and on March 20, 1588, John Achin- 
ross procured authority to compel his release. Who John Roy 
was, is an unfathomable problem ; but by the terms of com- 
plaint Lochbuy was his feudal superior, and consequently the 
Chief of John Roy. It would seem that in this case, as in 
others, "Historicus" is like the drowning man who grasps at a 
straw. 

These are the only evidences adduced in favour of the 
claimant to the Chiefship of the Clan. The attempt made 
ostensibly on behalf of Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy is a virtual 
admission that the claimant is not Chief of the Clan, but only 
of a sept. It has not been questioned that he is chieftain of 
that sept commonly known as Lochbuy. It is questioned that 
he is chieftain of all the descendants of Hector Reaganach. 

The communication of " Historicus " bears the date of " Edin- 
burgh; April 16, 1895." It was thought to be such a complete 
vindication of the claimant, that " Exile " (also bearing the ear- 
marks of the claimant's letter to Mr. John MacLean), from 
" Liverpool," had it inserted in the Oban Times as a rejoinder to 
some strictures made by myself in that journal of May 11, 1895. 
As this did not seem wholly satisfactory, an attack was made on 
me by someone signing himself "A. G.," but bearing no place 
of residence. The contents, however, prove that it was written 
in the mansion at Lochbuy, and presumably by the same one 
who signed himself" Historicus" in Edinburgh, and " Exile" in 
Liverpool. This communication was published in the same 
journal. Leaving out the personal matter, all it contains is a 
reference to a bond made by Donald MacLean of Brolas, in 
which he turns the "Clan of MacKarnig" over to Lochbuy. 
The paper absolutely proves nothing. It is an antiquarian 
relic. It simply shows an attempt on the part of the Tutor 
of Dowart to get rid of Donald Mackarnig and his troublesome 
clan. The next is a quotation from a purported letter from 
Captain Archibald Maclaine, who died in 1788, who claims, in a 
memorial to the king, that he " was only son to a Maclaine of 



13 

Lochbuie, ... a Highland chief, or the first man of his 
name." Because a subaltern makes great pretensions to his 
king, in order to receive certain emoluments, is that any proof 
that his memorial is to be taken as exact truth ? He may have 
carelessly used chief for chieftain. So far as representing any 
fact of history, it simply is not worth the paper it was written on. 

Still " Historicus," not being satisfied with his performance, 
essays in print once again — not in Edinburgh, as before, but 
simply " 23rd June, 1895," and causes the same to appear in the 
Oban Times of July 6, 1895. This communication opens with 
this statement : " My main contention was this, that so far back 
as history goes it is susceptible of absolute proof that the 
MacLeans of Duart and of Lochbuy have been distinct and 
separate clans, entirely independent of one another. I did not 
profess to discuss the question which of them represents the 
main stock and which is the cadet — if, indeed, they are of the 
same blood at all." This statement practically contains two 
things : (i) He will not discuss whether or not Hector Reaganach 
was older than his brother Lachlan ; (2) which is the main stock 
and which is the branch ; and (3), finally, whether Maclaine of 
Lochbuy is of the same blood as the MacLeans. Perhaps this 
is the worst case on record of a lawyer abandoning his client. 
It needs no comment. Is it a forerunner of Mr. Maclaine of 
Lochbuy 's intention to set up the claim that he is not of the 
historic name and blood of Clann-Ghilleain ? If so, we will bear 
the announcement with composure. However, it will not lessen 
the facts in the case. 

The writer next proceeds to give his opinions of the MS. of 
1450 and critical errors of Dr. Skene, one of the most eminent 
of Scottish historians, and refers to certain strictures put forth 
by Mr, Mackintosh Shaw in vol. xviii. Transactions Gaelic 
Society of Inverness. It is not necessary here to enter into 
the discussion of the exceptions that Mr. Shaw takes to the 
statements of Dr. Skene ; but let it suffice that nothing is there 
said concerning the opinions of the latter in regard to the 
genealogy of the MacLeans. If Dr. Skene is not an authority 
on Highland genealogy, then how far are we to take the 
opinions, assertions, and assumptions of one who hides himself 
under a 7ioni de pbnne ? 

The rest of the somewhat lengthy paper is taken up with a 
statement of objections and opinions of the facts adduced to 
show where the Chiefship really belongs, and concluding, or 
giving a summary, the writer saj's : " In the meantime, the facts 
stand thus : i. No evidence has been adduced to show whether 
Lochbuie or Duart is the older. 2. Duart and Lochbuie have 
been distinct and independent clans so far back as history goes, 
and neither end was or, until modern times, even claimed to be 



14 

Chief of the other. 3. The later Duarts are not the ' legitimate ' 
representatives of the earlier. 4. Neither Sir Fitzroy MacLean 
nor any of his immediate ancestors, so far as I can ascertain, 
have ever taken the usual legal steps to connect themselves 
with the later Duarts, whose baronetcy they have assumed." 

The measure of the writer and his regard for the truth may 
be found in his first declaration. That proof has been adduced 
to prove that Duart was the elder is known to all who paid 
attention to the controversy. It is purely assumption to declare 
that " Duart and Lochbuie have been distinct and independent 
clans so far back as history goes." There never was but one 
Clann-Ghilleain. Whosoever afifirms the contrary, does so re- 
gardless of the truth of history. When a clan was formed it 
took a distinctive name. If there were two clans, what was the 
name of the one, and what was the name of the other? How 
were the two distinguished by the Highlanders ? What his- 
torian recognises the two Clan MacLeans ? The writer should, 
in his extremity, have cited Donald Monro, who in his descrip- 
tion of Colmkill speaks of the "twa Clan Lynes with their 
lineage." He may here refer to the Duarts and Colls, because 
both buried on lona., and their tombs there were more con- 
spicuous than those of Lochbuy. But the hasty gleanings of a 
traveller are not to be regarded as authentic, unless it is some- 
thing he actually saw or was fully conversant with. 

As to the later Duarts not being the "legitimate" represen- 
tatives of the earlier, is a matter never sprung before this con- 
troversy opened. It was first hinted at by the claimant in his 
letter to Mr. John MacLean and now boldly asserted by a 
writer who conceals his name. Perhaps this writer knows best 
why he should remain incognito. Reference here is had to 
Lachlan, tenth Chief of MacLean. In Registruni Secreti Sigilli, 
vol. i. folio 29, there will be found "the legitimation to Lauchlan 
M'Gilleon, son natural to Hector M'Gilleon of Doward, October, 
1496." Where will "the legitimation of Murchadh Gearr " be 
found ? Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy is wholly responsible for 
calling up these facts of history, however unpleasant they may 
be. He prominently brought them into view. Other writers, 
except his man Friday, or " Historicus," in this controversy 
passed them over. 

As to the baronetcy of Sir Fitzroy, alluded to for the first 
time in the above extract from " Historicus," permit me to 
relate an incident. During the early days of July, 1887, while 
still at the mansion house of Lochbuy, I endorsed a letter to 
" Sir Fitzroy Donald MacLean." This was noticed by Lochbuy, 
who at once directed me to add " Bart.," for, said he, " that is 
the correct way to address him." In 163 1, Charles I. created 
Lachlan, seventeenth Chief of MacLean, a baronet of Nova 



15 

Scotia by the title of Sir Lachlan MacLean of Duart, Morvern, 
and Brolas, "with remainder to his heirs-male whatsoever." By 
this patent the present Chief becomes officially Sir Fitzroy 
Donald MacLean, Bart. 



WHO WAS THE ELDER BROTHER? 

HAVING disposed of the questions raised by the ad- 
herents of the claimant, the next step is to make 
certain historical inquiries relating to the principal 
matter in the controversy. As the claim of Lochbuy 
M^as immediately abandoned by his advocate, it is well enough 
to inquire into the merits of the position as first asserted. It 
was asserted that the house of Lochbuy has always claimed to 
be descended from an older brother of the ancestor of the 
Duart line. In other words, Hector Reaganach was older than 
Lachlan Lubanach. These brothers were born over six hundred 
years ago. The descendants of the one claim they were wronged 
out of their birthright. Upon the supposition that this is true, 
shall we, six or seven centuries later, readjust the matter? If 
this be the policy where will this matter end ? Are we called 
upon to undo that which has long been done, and in rectifying 
the evils of the past, for the matter of sentiment, commit wrongs 
on the living? 

To base a claim on mere tradition is an appeal to ignorance. 
If such were recognised as just, then there is not a single 
crowned head in Europe entitled to the throne he or she 
occupies. There are hundreds of claimants with far better titles 
than mere tradition. If tradition has special value, then the 
present Maclaine of Lochbuy is not entitled to his estates, nor 
is he even a chieftain of the honoured clan. He is fully aware 
that there is a tradition current on Mull, that after the death of 
John, seventeenth of Lochbuy, the rightful heir was defrauded 
out of the estates. 

But the value of tradition, in this case, absolutely proves 
nothing for the interests of the claimant. For it is also true 
that the majority of the MacLeans have the tradition that 
Lachlan was the elder of the two brothers. Then so far as 
tradition is concerned, one would balance the other. The one 
would be correct which is supported by historical evidence. 

For the sake of argument, let it be admitted that Hector 
Reaganach was the elder of the two brothers, and that in the 
male line his eldest heir should be Chief of the Clan — what 
then ? There is no tradition or historical evidence whatever 
that has ever been appealed to which shows that his son and 



16 

successor, Murdoch, was the eldest son. On the other hand, 
there is abundant proof that the eldest son was Charles. The 
Ardgour MS. is a trustworthy history of the MacLeans. It 
states that " Charles, the eldest son and heir, divested himself of 
the whole estate, excepting a small part, in favour of his younger 
brother." This is further confirmed by a letter from Hugh 
MacLean of Kingerloch, under date of Aug. 3, 1780, to John 
MacLean of Grulin, now preserved in Lochbuy charter-room, in 
which occurs this passage : " From the tradition of your own 
family and others, it was currently affirmed that this Charles, 
son to Hector, first of Lochbuie, was the eldest of several sons, 
but contented himself with the division of Ardmeanan, and left 
the rest to the other brothers to divide as they thought proper." 
If, then, the Chiefship is vested in the eldest son, and that son 
was Hector Reaganach, as put forth by the claimant, then the 
present Chief would be Allan MacLean, of West Brighton, 
England. But Allan puts forth no pretensions. He is a mem- 
ber of the MacLean Association, and with all loyal MacLeans 
acknowledges Sir Fitzroy to be The MacLean — Mac Illeatliain. 

By Mr. Maclaine of Lochbuy 's own showing, he is mas- 
querading under false colours whenever he claims to be Chief 
of the Clan. Neither can he show by tradition or otherwise 
that Charles divested himself of the privilege of being the eldest 
son. Nor is this all. The evidence is thus shown that the 
present " House of Lochbuy " is only a sept of a sept, for the 
principal stem is the " House of Urquhart." 

If there are no facts to warrant the assertion that the 
MacLeans of Lochbuy have always claimed the Chiefship of 
Clann-Ghilleain, it should not be made. If there are facts to 
warrant it, then they should be produced. It will be noticed 
that neither the claimant nor his advocate produced a single 
fact to corroborate the assumption. On the other hand, the 
advocate treats with contempt the pretension of his client ; for 
he specifically declares : " I did not profess to discuss the ques- 
tion which of them represents the main stock and which is the 
cadet." But a former MacLean of Lochbuy did have an argu- 
ment to support the pretension, viz.: Lachlan'was nicknamed 
Lubanach because he was a cunning, crafty fellow ; and through 
his devices he succeeded in cheating his elder brother Hector 
out of his birthright. It certainly requires patience to listen to 
claims that are substantiated only by flimsy pretexts. Admit- 
ting that Lachlan was crafty, does that prove he defrauded his 
brother ? It must be also remembered that Hector was nick- 
named The Stern, and would such a man submit to a fraud ? 
Is it not a strange sarcasm on the character of Hector for his 
descendants to attribute to him a character so weak and so 
effeminate as to submit tamely to his being cheated out of his 



17 

birthright? Shame upon such a posterity as would behttle and 
defame the name of a father in order that a httle vanity might 
be gratified thereby. 

It is a well known and often advertised fact that between 
the two brothers, Lachlan and Hector, there was always a bond 
of amity ; in short, they were two loving brothers, and no 
evidence exists that there ever was any enmity between them. 
That Hector was defrauded by his brother only exists in the 
mind of those who would have it so. 

The other evidences which seemingly would prove that 
Hector was the elder have been presented by those who held 
the opposite view, but only to refute the same. The tradition 
is not older than the year 1669, and was originated by Hugh 
MacDonald, who has been universally discredited. Of this 
writer Skene observes that whatever he says " with regard both 
to the clans with whom the Clan MacDonald were at feud, and 
to the rival branches of that great clan, must be received with 
great caution;" that he "perverted the genealogy " and "bas- 
tardized the heads " of rival clans (^lona Club Transactions, 
p. 325). MacKenzie says: "He was such an out-and-out 
partisan, that he scrupled not to write anything calculated to 
glorify his own immediate chief and name, apparently caring 
little whether it was true or not" {History of the MacDonaldSy 
p. 44). This claim, " which always existed," thus originated 
some three hundred years after the brothers were born, and that 
by a writer admitted to have been untruthful. Would anyone 
enter a court of law with such evidence? It is in evidence that 
Hugh MacDonald is the only writer who asserts that Hector 
Reaganach was the elder of the two brothers. How did he 
know this was true? What he writes about the MacLeans 
proves that he knew nothing about their genealogy. 



LflCHLAN WAS THE ELDER BROTHER. 

THE evidence that Lachlan was the elder son of Ian 
Dubh does not rest upon mere tradition. The cir- 
cumstances surrounding the two brothers and the 
testimony of the oldest MS. prove the seniority of 
Lachlan. In 1366 Lachlan married Margaret, daughter of 
John, first Lord of the Isles, who bestowed upon him the rank of 
lieutenant-general in war, and to him and his posterity the right 
hand of all the clans in battle. The marriage and the rank ob- 
tained was the highest gift in the power of the Lord of the Isles. 
About the same time Hector married Christina MacLeod. 
These circumstances and the charter to the principal estates on 



18 

Mull bestowed upon Lachlan go a long way towards affirming 
that he was the principal character. Historical evidence follows 
rapidly. 

The MS. of 1450 is recognised to be one of the most reliable 
of all histories on the genealogy of the Highland clans. It 
contains the following : 

" Genealogy of the MacLeans, Lachlan, son of John, son of 
. . . son of Maelsig, son of Gilleain, son of Icrath, son of 
Suan, son of Neill, son of Domlig, son of Ruingr, son of Old 
Dugall, son of Ferchard, son of Feradach, son of . . . son 
of Neachtan, son of Colman, son of Buadan," &c. 

It will be noticed that this is the " genealogy of the Mac- 
Leans," and not of any one sept of the Clan. This part of the 
MS. must have been written during the lifetime of the two 
brothers, although parts of it are of a later origin. To this 
genealogy Dr. Skene has appended the following : " This gene- 
alogy, it will be observed, commences with Lachlan, the pro- 
genitor of the Dowart family, and thus proves the seniority of 
this branch over that of Lochbuy, descended from a brother of 
Lachlan. The MS. having been written during the lifetime of 
the two brothers, it may be held as settling the question." 
There was a special reason for inditing this note. In 1837, 
Skene published his Highlanders of Scotland, and in it occurs 
the following : " The descendants of these brothers have dis- 
puted among themselves the honour of the chieftainship of the 
Clan Gille-eon, but, although there are not data left from which 
to ascertain with any degree of certainty in which family the 
right lay, there seems little reason to doubt that the family of 
Dowart was the principal branch of the Clan. Both families 
produce tradition in support of their claims ; but when we con- 
sider that, upon the Lord of the Isles being compelled when in 
the power of both the brothers, to give his daughter to one 
of them, Lachlan was selected ; and that unvaried tradition 
asserts that his son commanded as lieutenant-general at the 
battle of the Harlow ; it seems probable that Lachlan was the 
elder brother, and consequently, that the MacLeans of Dowart 
were Chiefs of the Clan Gille-eon" (vol. ii. p. 208). Gregory 
published his Western Highlands in 1836, and in that work 
occurs this passage : " The house of Lochbuy has always main- 
tained that, of the two brothers, Lachlan Lubanach and Hector 
Reganach, the latter was the senior ; but this is a point on 
which there is no certain evidence " (p. 70). In the preface 
to his work Gregory states that much information was 
obtained from " Murdoch Maclaine of Lochbuy, Esq." Skene 
doubtless obtained his information from the same source. The 
former frankly declares " there is no certain evidence," and the 



19 

latter affirms "there seems little reason to doubt that the family 
of Dowart was the principal branch of the Clan ... it 
seems probable that Lachlan was the elder brother." These 
productions and observations were given before that part of 
the MS. of 1450 relating to the MacLeans had been deciphered. 
Hence it was necessary for Skene in his note to speak emphati- 
cally, by saying this " proves the seniority of this (Dowart) 
branch over that of Lochbuy " (^lona Cli/b Transactions, p. 362). 
In all his later works Skene saw no occasion to change the view 
thus expressed. 

In the genealogical lists published in Skene's Celtic Scotlattd, 
the following facts are stated : John Dubh "had long before two 
good sons, viz., Lachlan and Hector" (vol. iii. p. 482). It is not 
said that " John Dubh had two good sons, Hector and Lachlan." 



DUflRT 18 CHIEF. 

IRRESPECTIVE of the controversy as to the seniority of 
the two brothers, every unprejudiced mind will not dispute 
the undoubted fact that Duart was always Chief There 
is no evidence whatever that any Lochbuy ever posed as 
" Chief of the Clan " until the present claimant put forth the 
letter referred to in a public manner. It is well, however, to note 
some of the evidence, as it may be of service for future reference. 
Hence an appeal to the testimony of historians will be of service. 

In a " Description of the Isles of Scotland " (inserted by 
Skene in vol. iii. pp. 428-440, of Celtic Scotland), written between 
1577 and 1595, the writer speaks of " M'Clane Doward, callit 
Great M'Clane," but "M'Clane of Lochbuy" is uniformly so 
written. Skene says this document " has all the appearance of 
an official report." 

Martin wrote his Description of the IVestern Isles about 1695. 
In his account of Mull the following statements occur : "This 
(Castle Duart) was the seat of Sir John MacLean, head of the 
ancient family of the MacLeans." " Some miles further on the 
west coast stands the Castle of Moy, at the head of Lochbuy, 
and is the seat of MacLean of Lochbuy" (p. 255). It is not 
here declared that Sir John was head of the Duart family, but 
" head of the ancient family," while the other is simply " Mac- 
Lean of Lochbuy." It shows, at least, the standing of the two 
at the time Martin wrote, and how they were considered. 

It is true that Dr. Samuel Johnson was not an authority on 

Highland customs ; yet he was a close observer, and visited the 

principal MacLeans during his journey to the West Highlands. 

He visited Sir Allan MacLean at his home on Inch Kenneth, 

n 



20 

and speaks of him as " Sir Allan, the Chieftain of the great 
Clan of MacLean " (p. 125;. He speaks of " MacLean of Loch- 
buy " as " a very powerful laird " (p. 1 34). 

Boswell, who accompanied Dr. Johnson during his tour, also 
speaks of " Sir Allan MacLean, the Chief of his Clan" {Tour of 
the Hebrides, p. 256), "the Chief of the MacLean" {Ibid., p. 266). 
He speaks of " Maclaine of Lochbuy," " the Laird of Lochbuy " 
{Ibid., p. 270). 

Alexander MacKenzie, one of our latest authorities on the 
Highland families, in his History of the Camerons, speaks of 
" Hector MacLean of Lochbuy, who aided the MacDonalds 
against his own Chief" (p. 73). 



INTERNE HISTORY. 

THE history of the Clan, or rather its own acts, is the 
best evidence. Conclusive testimony abounds on every 
hand. The patronymics may be used with force, By 
way of pre-eminence MacLean of Duart was called 
Mac IlleatJiain, or The MacLean ; Lochbuy was called Sliochd 
M hurchaidJi RiiaidJi, or the race of Red Murdoch ; Kingerloch 
was Mac-MJiic-EacJminn Chiiinghearloch, or the son of the son of 
Hector of Kingerloch , Ardgour was Mac-Mhic Eoghain, or the 
son of Ewen's son. 

The Highland bards, who in the main were good genealo- 
gists, carried out the idea of the patronymic. They certainly 
knew who was the Chief of the Clan in their day. They speak 
of MacLean of Duart as " Mac-Ghilleain," or MacLean, as 
" Ceann Chlann Ghilleain," or Chief of the MacLeans, and as 
" Clann-Cinnidh Chlann-Ghilleain," or Clan-head of the Mac- 
Leans. The term MacLean, in the language of the bards and 
all the old Highlanders, meant the Chief of the whole Clan 
Gilleain. The same bards refer to MacLean of Lochbuy simply 
as MacLean of Lochbuy or MacLean of Moy. 

It should be noted that the Clan MacLean was pre- 
eminently a warrior race. Many a hard-fought battle did 
they participate in. It was the duty and the privilege of the 
Chief to direct the clansmen in the midst of the fray. In a 
feud it was not necessary for the Chief to be present ; but on 
national affairs he was rarely absent. 

It has already been noted that Lachlan, fifth Chief of 
MacLean, was appointed lieutenant-general in war, and to him 
and his posterity the right hand of all the clans in battle. At 
the battle of the Harlaw, fought July 24, 141 1, Red Hector, 
sixth Chief of MacLean, and the Chief of Macintosh were 



21 

next in command to the Lord of the Isles, and heads of their 
respective septs. At the battle of Inverlochy, in 1431, where 
the forces of Donald Balloch met the king's army commanded 
by the Earl of Mar, we find John Dubh MacLean, brother of 
Lachlan Bronnach, seventh Chief of MacLean, one of the 
leaders of the front division of Donald's hosts. At the battle 
of the Bloody Bay, fought in 1482, Hector Odhar, ninth Chief 
of MacLean, not only headed the MacLeans, but also took 
his hereditary post of lieutenant-general under the Lord of the 
Isles. 

In 1493 the MacLeans became an independent clan. In 
15 13 James IV. summoned their Chief to meet him, with the 
array of the kingdom, on the Common Moor of Edinburgh. 
At the head of the MacLeans, Lachlan, their tenth Chief, fell 
on the fatal field of Flodden, on the 9th September of that 
year. During the stormy times that immediately followed, we 
find the leader of the MacLeans was Lachlan Catanach, eleventh 
Chief In 1527 the MacLeans were led by Hector Mor, their 
twelfth Chief In 1537 the MacLeans of Lochbuy became 
refractory, but received a severe lesson in a clan battle, where 
John Og of Lochbuy and his two elder sons were killed. At 
the battle of Glenlivat, fought October 3, 1594, between the 
Catholic earls and the king's forces, the latter were supported 
by Sir Lachlan Mor, fourteenth Chief, at the head of the 
MacLeans, in which their honoured leader particularly distin- 
guished himself On the 15th June, 1596, Sir Lachlan got an 
act in his favour " cancelling his forfeiture," the tenor of which 
shows that at court he was recognised as Chief of his Clan. He 
was "a Highland chieftain of superior education and ability" 
{Reg. Sec. Scot., vol. v. p. 295). Sir Lachlan was succeeded by 
his son Hector Og, fifteenth Chief of MacLean. About 1618 
the latter became embarrassed in money matters, when the 
Privy Council appointed Sir Rory MacKenzie " to uplift the 
rents from his tenants, and certain MacLeans, &c., who were all 
capitanes, schiftanes, and principal men of his (Duart's) clan 
and dependence" {Ibid., vol. xi. p. 382. See also vol. xii. p. 429, 
in which the tenor of the language shows that the Government 
considered this Hector Chief of the MacLeans). At Inverlochy, 
February 2, 1645, Sir Lachlan, seventeenth Chief, and recog- 
nised as Chief, led the MacLeans into battle under the great 
Montrose. His son. Sir Hector, eighteenth Chief, commanded 
eight hundred MacLeans at the battle of Inverkeithing, fought 
July 20, 165 1. All the cadets of MacLean were represented in this 
battle and loyally stood by their Chief, among which have been 
preserved the names of Torloisk, Ardgour, Coll, Ross, Muck, 
Drimnin, Borreray, Inverscadell, Lochbuy, Kinlochaline, Ard- 
tornish, Drimnacross, &c. Several gentlemen of the Lochbuy 




22 

family fell on this field of carnage. Sir John, twentieth Chief, 
commanded the MacLeans at Killiecrankie, July 27, 1689, and 
at Sheriffmuir, November 13, 1715. 

During these ages, when conflict was rife, in what battles did 
Lochbuy summon his clan ? The fact remains, and cannot be 
contested, that Lochbuy never acted a principal part. However, 
it is announced with a flourish that Lochbuy commanded at 
Knockbreck. But what was Knockbreck ? It gains importance 
only because here the first blood in Scotland was shed for King 
James, in 1689. Dundee had ordered the clans to assemble. 
In obedience to this summons. Sir John, the twentieth Chief, 
immediately sent Hector MacLean of Lochbuy as his lieutenant- 
colonel, with three hundred men, to join Dundee. On the way 
they were attacked by five troops of horse, but the latter were 
put to flight. On the side of the MacLeans only one ensign 
and a few private soldiers were slain. Thus, instead of Lochbuy 
being the controlling power, it is seen that he was acting in 
obedience to his Chief. 

Having referred to the of^cial acts of the Government, a few 
more notices may be referred to. In A.P.S., October 9, 1663, 
in an Act for renewing the Justices for Argyleshire, appears the 
name of Donald MacLean, designed as " Tutor of MacLean." 
On May 13, 1685, A.P.S., vol. viii. p. 468, for ordering and 
uplifting of the eight months' cess in xA-rgyleshire, appears, 
among others, " The Laird of MacLean, Lachlan MacLean of 
Brolass, Lachlan MacLean of Torloisk, MacLean of Ardgour, 
MacLean of Lochbuy." On June 16, 1685, A.P.S., vol. viii. 
p. 493, among others, appears, " The aires of the late Lord 

Macdonald of , Donald Macdonald of Moydart, The Laird 

of MacLean, MacLean of Lochbuie," &c. In A.P.S., July 2, 
1695, vol. ix. pp. 55-60, and p. 115, Sir John MacLean, Bart, 
of Dowart, appears designed as Laird of MacLean, and as Laird 
of that Ilk. On 15th June, 1686, x'\.P.S., vol. viii. pp. 611-613, 
" In a warrant for a Bore Brieve to Charles Colbert, Marquis 
Seignelay, King's Barons of Castlehill, Inverness- shire," appears 
the name of " Catherine MacLean, daughter of MacLean, King's 
Barron of Duchart in Mull, and Cheefe of his name." 



HOW THE MflCLE/lNS REGARD THE MATTER. 

IT is an undeniable fact that the MacLeans almost univer- 
sally regard the Duart line as the Chief. This is true 
to-day, and by the foregoing facts it is proved always to 
have been true. But there is a very striking illustration 
of this fact worthy of citation. Previous to the year 1662 a 



23 

colony of MacLeans had for ages been settled as tenants on 
The Chisholm's estates in Strathglass. In that year a number 
of them were accused of witchcraft, and The Chisholm of that 
time, apparently with the approval of the ministers and gentle- 
men of the parishes of Kilmorack and Kiltarlity, within which 
the MacLeans lived, received commission on June 26th to com- 
mence persecution against them. In this he experienced a 
check from an unexpected source and manner. " The Mac- 
Leans, in their distress, sought the protection of the Chief of 
their Clan — Sir Allan MacLean of Duart, in the distant island 
of Mull. Sir Allan responded to their cry, and on their behalf 
presented a petition to the Privy Council, setting forth their 
cause and demanding justice for them, the result being that the 
Council recalled the Commission to the Chisholms, and ordered 
them to appear in Edinburgh with the accused. . . . This 
deliverance they undoubtedly owed to the patriarchal and prac- 
tical interest taken in them by Sir Allan of Duart, to whom, as 
their Chief, they still looked for protection, notwithstanding 
that they and their forefathers had been removed from his 
country for at least ' two or three hundred years,' and that a 
journey from Strathglass to Mull in those times was a more 
serious undertaking than a voyage across the Atlantic in our 
day. In the annals of our country there is perhaps no case 
which illustrates better than the one now under consideration 
the strength of that cord of care and confidence which in the 
olden times bound together the Chief and the Clan" (^Transac- 
tions Gaelic Society of Inverness, vol. ix. pp. 1 15-120). It should 
further be noticed that in his reply to the Privy Council, The 
Chisholm calls Sir Allan "the Laird of MacLean." Another 
fact to be noted. As the forefathers of these MacLeans had 
been in Strathglass not less than " two hundred years " before 
this persecution, it is reasonable to presume they were of the 
House of Lochbuy and settled there at the time Sir Charles of 
Lochbuy took his residence in that northern county. Strath- 
glass and Urquhart are very close together, only one ridge 
separating them. 



LOCHBUY'8 EVIDENCES. 

THE claim set forth by Lochbuy, that he is the descen- 
dant of the elder son of John Dubh is sought to be 
strengthened by a tombstone: " At the end of the family 
vault in Laggan burying ground a handsome marble 
tablet is fixed in the wall, which tablet had been placed there 
early in the ' Eorties ' in memory of Murdoch Maclaine, grand- 



father to the present laird. On said tablet is inscribed ' Chief.' " 
This Murdoch died August 20, 1844. It is not probable that 
he placed the tablet there. It is the work of someone who 
came later on. What significance has it? It is a fact that 
even in the Highlands the terms "Chief" and "Chieftain" have 
been confounded by some. If placed there designedly, may it 
not have been preparatory to the attempt to establish or set up 
a new clan as demonstrated by the present Maclaine of Loch- 
buy? Just here I desire to say that the burying ground referred 
to is an old church building made out of stone, the history of 
which is unknown, which has been turned into receiving vaults 
for the dead. I visited this place twice during the month of 
June, 1887, and once in company with the claimant. I care- 
lully read all the inscriptions, but the recollection of such an 
inscription I do not possess ; and I am positive my attention 
was not called to it. A fact so important certainly would not 
have been overlooked by me. But admitting the fact thereof, 
it is of no value whatever, unless to disprove what I had said 
concerning the present proprietor, viz., that he was the first of 
his name to sign himself" Chief of the Clan." This was written 
advisedly. There is no evidence recorded in the pages of 
history where any MacLean of Lochbuy signed his name 
" Chief of the Clan." Every paper in the charter-room of Loch- 
buy House I examined during the months of June and July, 
1887. At that time there was not a single scrap of paper to 
prove the pretensions of the claimant. There was not a 
single paper or letter addressed to Lochbuy as "Chief of the 
Clan," or even intimated as much. The occupants of the Loch- 
buy estates have been addressed and referred to as " MacLean 
of Lochbuy," and by that address they have seen fit to sign 
their name. 



DOES MACLAINE OF LOCHBUY RENOUNCE THE HONOURED 

NAME? 

THE intimation by the claimant's mouthpiece, who signs 
himself " Historicus," that " MacLean of Duart and 
MacLean of Lochbuy being of the same blood " he will 
not discuss, has a broader meaning than appears on 
first view. It should be well known that the uncle of the 
present Lochbuy abandoned the MacLean tartan and fixed 
upon a different pattern which has been since worn by the 
heads of that cadet. The coat-of-arms was figured out by the 
late Sir Archibald MacLean of the same family. For a long 
while various attempts were hit upon for the spelling of the 



25 

name, until at last " Maclaine " was thought to answer the pur- 
pose. Hence we discover that in quite recent times the name, 
coat-of-arms, and tartan have undergone a change in order to 
suit the caprice of the head of this branch of the MacLeans. 
Perhaps during these rapid changes no one anticipated that the 
next step would be to put forth the claim that this branch of a 
sept of the House of MacLean would prove to be a claimant to 
the throne of MacLean. 

The retreat was very hasty. The same year which saw the 
claimant masquerading as the "Chief of the Clan" also saw 
him posing, not as the " Chief of the Clan," but as the Chief of 
a rival clan. The attitudes struck by the claimant were as 
ridiculous as anything that has ever happened in the Highlands 
of Scotland. How one can maintain the respect of his neigh- 
bours under such circumstances must remain for time to develop. 

Many of the foibles and follies of the present Maclaine of 
Lochbuy his clansmen have been only too anxious to keep 
among themselves, and hoping almost against hope that the 
remainder of the noble patrimony left him by his father might 
not be squandered. But when he defies history and the evidence 
of his clansmen, and exposes himself in the public press by 
assuming that which belongs to another, it is time to call a halt 
in a manner that will be heeded. 



CONCLUSION. 

THh! MacLeans of Duart have always been in possession 
of the Chiefship from the time of Lachlan Lubanach 
down to the present day. The presumption then is 
that they are the rightful Chiefs. All the known evi- 
dence corroborates this position ; and consequently Sir Fitzroy 
Donald MacLean, Bart., is Chief of all the descendants of 
Gilleain na Tuaighe. Hence it is that the MacLeans universally 
(I know of no exception anywhere except in the person of the 
claimant) acknowledge Sir Fitzroy as their Chief, and the only 
one who has the right to style himself Chief of the Clann- 
Ghilleain. 

Greenville, Ohio, 

August ■/, t8qj. 



APPENDIX. 



CLAN MACLEAN ASSOCIATION. 



AxNNUAL GENERAL BUSINESS MEETING. 

Watkrloo Rooms, GLAS(;o^Y, 4TI1 April, 1895. 

Magnus MacLean, Esq., M.A,, F.R.S.E., Vice-President, 

Presiding. 



1"^HE following motions, of which notice was given by the 
President, Walter MacLean, E.sq. — who was unable to 
be present — were moved for him by Mr. John MacLean, \'ice- 
President, and Convener of Finance Committee, seconded by 
Mr. Lacmlan MacLean, Councillor, and unanimously agreed 
to, viz. : — 

1. With reference to the correspondence that has appeared in the 

public press as to the pretensions of MacLaine of J.ochbuie in 
his claim to the Chiefship of the Clan, we, the office-bearers and 
members of the Clan MacLean Association, desire to express 
our conviction that all the reliable evidence that has ever been 
produced, both historical and traditional, nullifies Lochbuie's 
pretensions ; and we further affirm our belief that the manuscript 
of 1450, which is recognised by all authorities as the most 
reliable work extant on the genealogy of the Highland Clans, 
and also the manuscript of 1467, conclusively prove that Lachlan 
was the eldest son of John, fourth Chief of Duart, and that the 
Duart branch was descended from him, and thus in the present 
representative of it, viz., Sir Fitzroy Donald MacLean, Baronet 
of Duart, Morvern, and Brolas, is vested the Chiefship, and the 
Clan MacLean Association express their continued and unabated 
fidelity to him as Chief of the Clan MacLean. 

2. That copies of the above be sent to Sir Fitzroy Donald MacLean, 

I'aronet of Duart, Morvern, and P>rolas, Chief of the Clan, and 
to all the Chieftains of the Clan. 



\ 



\ ^,/